The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

[whitehall]

We aren't as dumb as we used to be...or are we? Relatively simple scientific data has revealed that Central Park in NYC was under water at a point in (pre) history and under a glacier in a more recent time in (pre) history. What do we make of such radical changes in geological conditions? Mastodon farts ended the Ice Age?

 

[daveman]

Why is it that these people think the CO2s made by mans activities can have NO effect because man created them?

how is it anyone can be that mindless?

You're right. And world socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[konradv]

A long time, since my theory doesn't involve the use of math, just scientific principles as they're generally applied, NOT those found in your fantasy land where radio doesn't work!!!

You can't apply scientific principles without math konradv. You can accept what someone else tells you without math, but you can have no idea whether what you are being told is true or not.

How about you explain how anything I have said would prevent radio from working. Or microwave transmission or any other transmission over the air. Show how much you know by applying scientific principles to your claim.

You're the one that keeps saying re-emitted photons wouldn't be able to reurn to earth because of EM flux. How would that be different for radio signals..., also EM? You seem to operate under a different set of physical laws than the rest of us. That's why I don't even attempt to discuss your math. I'm concerned with real world situations, NOT your fantasy world.

 

[konradv]

We aren't as dumb as we used to be...or are we? Relatively simple scientific data has revealed that Central Park in NYC was under water at a point in (pre) history and under a glacier in a more recent time in (pre) history. What do we make of such radical changes in geological conditions? Mastodon farts ended the Ice Age?

It's irrelevant. We're talking 200 years not thousands or millions. Just because warming had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have a different cause now. If you don't think it's added CO2 by man you need to answer THESE questions: where's the CO2 coming from and how can we expect anything but warming, if more CO2 traps more energy? That's what needs to be answered, not juvenile questions about animal farts.

 

[konradv]

The EM field generated by the earth emits along every possible vector along the surface of the earth.

But only when photons of the same wavelengths meet would there be any interference, a very unlikely event. Also, since the sun is much brighter than earth and you say EM fields interfere with the kind of emissions I assume to be warming the earth, how is it we can see the earth from the moon? I thought, according to your theory, all that sun EM would swamp out and reflected EM from earth. You say it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted from CO2 to do it. How does a photon reflected off the earth fight all that EM coming from the sun. According to your theory we shouldn't be able to see the moon and planets at all!!!

 

[wirebender]

It's irrelevant. We're talking 200 years not thousands or millions. Just because warming had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have a different cause now. If you don't think it's added CO2 by man you need to answer THESE questions: where's the CO2 coming from and how can we expect anything but warming, if more CO2 traps more energy? That's what needs to be answered, not juvenile questions about animal farts.

Sure, events now don't necessarily have to have the same causes that they did in the past, but lacking any sort of conclusive proof, why invent a new cause for a thing that has happened repeatedly in the past if not for political reasons?

 

[konradv]

It's irrelevant. We're talking 200 years not thousands or millions. Just because warming had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have a different cause now. If you don't think it's added CO2 by man you need to answer THESE questions: where's the CO2 coming from and how can we expect anything but warming, if more CO2 traps more energy? That's what needs to be answered, not juvenile questions about animal farts.

Sure, events now don't necessarily have to have the same causes that they did in the past, but lacking any sort of conclusive proof, why invent a new cause for a thing that has happened repeatedly in the past if not for political reasons?

Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

 

[wirebender]

The EM field generated by the earth emits along every possible vector along the surface of the earth.

But only when photons of the same wavelengths meet would there be any interference, a very unlikely event.

Not true again konradv. You keep demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of even the basics. Go back to your single strand of copper wire. Attach a car battery to one end (DC) and a wall socket to the other (AC). Clearly the EM fields generated by the two sources are of different frequencies (read wavelengths) but you still can't have electricity flowing in both directions along the single wire. It just won't happen.

The reason radio stations don't completely delete each other is more a matter of the point of, and direction of propagation in any geographical area. Clearly, you either didn't look at the link I provided, or you did, but didn't understand any of it.

Also, since the sun is much brighter than earth and you say EM fields interfere with the kind of emissions I assume to be warming the earth, how is it we can see the earth from the moon?

EM vectors, konradv move in straight lines and as such, only vectors that are in opposition along a straight line from both sources are subtracted.

You say it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted from CO2 to do it.

When did I ever say such a thing? I said that one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 molecule.

How does a photon reflected off the earth fight all that EM coming from the sun. According to your theory we shouldn't be able to see the moon and planets at all!!!

Again, EM vectors move in straight lines and cancel out only along those straight lines. The spatial relationship of the earth to its atmosphere is not like the relationship of the earth to the sun or the earth, moon and sun. I wish there were easy words with which to explain this to you konradv. I suppose I could point you in the direction of some reference to Poynting Vectors, but I doubt that it would help matters. Directing you to more complicated mathematics will not make it easier to understand. It is a fact, however, that whenever you examine the movement of electromagnetic energy (read radiation), all movement is determined and can be predicted by field vector calculus which is tied directly to the law of conservation of energy.

 

[westwall]

It's irrelevant. We're talking 200 years not thousands or millions. Just because warming had one cause in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't have a different cause now. If you don't think it's added CO2 by man you need to answer THESE questions: where's the CO2 coming from and how can we expect anything but warming, if more CO2 traps more energy? That's what needs to be answered, not juvenile questions about animal farts.

Sure, events now don't necessarily have to have the same causes that they did in the past, but lacking any sort of conclusive proof, why invent a new cause for a thing that has happened repeatedly in the past if not for political reasons?

Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

Good question. Why does CO2 allways rise hundreds of years after a major warming? Correlation does not equal causation but the CO2 increase we are experiencing now interestingly enough is occuring 800 years after the MWP. It is just as likely that the CO2 increase is related to that now well known (but not understood) process as anthropogenic causes.

 

[wirebender]

[
Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

We don't have a start point. CO2 can not alter the climate of the planet. It has no mechanism by which to trap or retain heat.

Tell me konradv, how long do you think it takes for a packet of IR to radiate from the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere and into space.

 

[konradv]

Sure, events now don't necessarily have to have the same causes that they did in the past, but lacking any sort of conclusive proof, why invent a new cause for a thing that has happened repeatedly in the past if not for political reasons?

Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

Good question. Why does CO2 allways rise hundreds of years after a major warming? Correlation does not equal causation but the CO2 increase we are experiencing now interestingly enough is occuring 800 years after the MWP. It is just as likely that the CO2 increase is related to that now well known (but not understood) process as anthropogenic causes.

Why it does is a mystery. The fact that it does is irrelevant to our current situation. What would a rise 800 years from now have to do with CO2 trapping IR today, anyway? Just a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

 

[konradv]

[
Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

We don't have a start point. CO2 can not alter the climate of the planet. It has no mechanism by which to trap or retain heat.

Tell me konradv, how long do you think it takes for a packet of IR to radiate from the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere and into space.

Even your fellow skeptics aren't swallowing your BS. Give it up. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows the theory behind how CO2 "traps" energy. I never said it retained heat, either. Rather, it re-emits a photon and sends it towards earth, thereby generating a "plus" in the overall energy equation. Don't you believe in absorptoion and re-emission of photons? I could swear you said something about then being of different wavelengths, right? Then wouldn't that be what I'm talking about, although I consider direction to be more important than wavelength?

 

[gslack]

They say AGW is a "faith"!!! What can be more dogmatic than saying we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as big as Earth?

I call it a faith because it has all the characteristics of a faith.

1. A faith requires very little if any real proof but a science requires a preponderance of evidence. Popular Climate Scientology works on an assumption based on very little hard evidence which is circumstantial at best. "the planet got warmer and the CO2 levels increased; therefore CO2 caused the warming." That is circumstantial evidence.

2. A faith is often held by people who will deny all evidence to the contrary of anything that may contradict the tenets of their faith. Kind of like when you guys went from global warming to climate change a few years ago. You all went all zealous on the fact the goracle said the planet was warming, and suddenly it was warming and then cooling again. You couldn't deny the faith so you changed the faith a little bit.

Tell ya what, when you guys stop acting like religious zealots I will stop treating you like one..

Well that's why I call skepticism/denial a faith. Apparently we're to take their "Word" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as big as earth. Also, your logical syllogism, "the planet got warmer and the CO2 levels increased; therefore CO2 caused the warming." is inaccurate and illogical. It should read: The energy-trapping properties of CO2 are well known. The amount in the atmosphere has been rising, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, an increase in temperatures would be expected.

Way to tap dance there bojangles... You completely ignored why I called it a faith and said "I know you are but what am I"... YO CORNHOLE! PAY ATTENTION! The so-called "energy trapping properties of CO2" is one of the problems with your hypothesis. Where did that energy come from? The sun! So the sun warms the earth the earth releases more CO2 from the oceans, permafrost, melting ice, so on and so forth. SO the warming came from somewhere else. When the sun doesn't warm the earth as much there is less energy to trap. Follow me so far? Yeah it really is that simple. Didn't need a thesaurus or a chart or graph to tell you and its pretty solid logic as well. Also the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.0387% and for perspective there is about 20.946% oxygen. So to make a real difference we would have to increase CO2 content by a lot more than the 1.9 PPM a year we had the last 10 years.

But then you don't care about reality do ya pal. Nope all you care about is pushing your religion on the masses.

 

[westwall]

Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

Good question. Why does CO2 allways rise hundreds of years after a major warming? Correlation does not equal causation but the CO2 increase we are experiencing now interestingly enough is occuring 800 years after the MWP. It is just as likely that the CO2 increase is related to that now well known (but not understood) process as anthropogenic causes.

Why it does is a mystery. The fact that it does is irrelevant to our current situation. What would a rise 800 years from now have to do with CO2 trapping IR today, anyway? Just a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

You wish. My point is the current increase in CO2 is just as likely a artifice of the MWP that ended 800 years ago. The Vostock ice cores show a 800 year period from when there is a major warming period and a significant increase in CO2...do you understand that now?

 

[westwall]

[
Because we have a start point, the IR, and no other explanation for its rise. Why is atmospheric CO2 rising, wirebender?

We don't have a start point. CO2 can not alter the climate of the planet. It has no mechanism by which to trap or retain heat.

Tell me konradv, how long do you think it takes for a packet of IR to radiate from the surface of the earth, through the atmosphere and into space.

Even your fellow skeptics aren't swallowing your BS. Give it up. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows the theory behind how CO2 "traps" energy. I never said it retained heat, either. Rather, it re-emits a photon and sends it towards earth, thereby generating a "plus" in the overall energy equation. Don't you believe in absorptoion and re-emission of photons? I could swear you said something about then being of different wavelengths, right? Then wouldn't that be what I'm talking about, although I consider direction to be more important than wavelength?

No, he's correct in the fact that there is no "start point". You guys would love there to be one because then you can ignore all that inconvenient history that says what is occuring today is not special. In fact most of what is occuring now is minor compared to stuff that happened just a few decades ago.

That's the only inconvenient truth we're dealing with. if you ignore the history from 30 years ago and before then yes the weather we've had is interesting. However when you look at the stuff from before it's relatively minor in scope. the poor folks who were killed in the tornados will no doubt disagree but it is a fact that the storms now are less then in the past. Both in power and frequency.

 

[wirebender]

Even your fellow skeptics aren't swallowing your BS. Give it up. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows the theory behind how CO2 "traps" energy.

Then it should be very easy for you to provide some experimental evidence. I can provide plenty of observable, repeatable evidence that it absorbs energy and then emits the same amount. If it is as you say, evidence should be easy to come by. Lets see it.

I never said it retained heat, either. Rather, it re-emits a photon and sends it towards earth, thereby generating a "plus" in the overall energy equation.

And I have described the laws of physics and done the math to prove that it doesn't happen. To generate even one watt of energy more than the earth receives from the sun would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Energy, my friend, can not be created from nothing. If it could, then we would have no energy problems.

Don't you believe in absorptoion and re-emission of photons?

Of course I do. It isn't a matter of belief though, it is a known, proven fact. What I don't believe, because it is in violation of the laws of physics, is that the weaker EM field of the atmosphere pushes energy (photons) down to the surface of the earth to be absorbed. I have described the laws of physics that say that it can not happen and done the math to prove it. To date, no one has pointed out any misapplied law of physics or even begun to challenge my proof.

I could swear you said something about then being of different wavelengths, right? Then wouldn't that be what I'm talking about, although I consider direction to be more important than wavelength?

I said that CO2 emits energy at a wavelength to low to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of IR. That has nothing to do with pushing energy upstream of a more powerful EM field. You just keep demonstrating that you really don't understand even the basics. This is all just a matter of faith to you. You accept what you are told so long as the person who tells you is acceptable in your political framework.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More red meat into the discussion!

 

[westwall]

More red meat into the discussion!

Fundamentally flawed. Based on wine production records alone the wine region was 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are currently capable of growing today. Figure out what the differential was based on that.